/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm sure >>>/x/ would like your irrelevant blog post.

>>5930023
Irrelevant to what? It is perfectly relevant to a discussion of pleasure. Which is what I made the thread to discuss.

>>5930052
You're just on the wrong board. You accidentally posted your preschool pseudo-philosophy on the science and math board. But that's no big problem. You can always delete your thread and repost it wherever it belongs.

>>5930054
Ha. What a strange thing to inspire such vitriol. What are your thoughts on the basis of pleasure?

>>5930056
I am here to discuss science and math, not toddler's first "deep thoughts". I can understand you're proud of having come to think about things every normal 4 or 5 year old tends to think about, but please keep it to the appropriate board and don't bother /sci/.

>>5930061
Well, there has to be some explanation of what pleasure is. What do you think? Feel free to disregard my thoughts. If mine are juvenile and wrong, I'd like to hear something more advanced.

>>5930067
From your OP we can conclude that you are neither interested in nor sufficiently educated to understand a neuroscientific explanation. You want to talk about kindergarten philosophy and not science. I hate to break it to you once again, but you're wrong on the science board.

>>5930069
Try me. Your knowledge of neuroscience may vastly outstrip mine, but perhaps the thread can be salvaged. I'm always interested in learning more. If your knowledge simply leaves me bamboozled, I'll go away.

>>5930071
If you don't even know the neuroscience behind pleasure, you are lacking fundamental basics in the field. Why would I bother giving a lecture to you?

>>5930072
I wasn't aware that pleasure was a solved problem. Of course I'm not talking about the basics, but the cutting edge of the problem. That's what I'm curious to learn more about. Lay it on me.

Very cool story, bro.

>>>/r9k/
>>>/b/
>>>/x/

>>5930076
If you wanted to talk about research, you would have posted about research. You didn't. Instead you posted ignorant toddler drivel. You do not have the education to talk about the topic on any level higher than "muh unoriginal pseudo-philosophy".

>>5930079
Perhaps in my first post, I did talk about philosophy. But I'm curious now to talk about the research. You seem very knowledgeable on this subject. What, in brief, is the current state of the neuroscience of pleasure? You can discuss it at any level or specificity you wish. If it simply bamboozles me, consider it a chance to make a fool out of someone less intelligent than you.

>>5930081
I see no point in wasting my time writing a more elaborate reply to someone who can't even make his OP post on-topic and informative. Do you even reflect your own behaviour? You come here and start a thread with a low quality post that might as well be copypasted from a preteen's facebook wall and then you honestly expect people to give you lectures on things you can read in literally any introductory book on the topic?

>>5930084
Come on, share your thoughts on the subject. You seem to care a great deal about the quality and relevance of posts on this forum. Now is your chance to contribute to that. Perhaps I am too ignorant and hopeless to benefit, but another person reading this thread might learn something, or have something to say.

>>5930085

He doesn't know, don't waste your time. Don't for a second think that /sci/ has better quality posters than any other board. It's still 4chan

>>5930004

Are you implying the need to upload our accessible consciousness to the cloud in order to reflect void of the will?